לקוטי שיחות חלק ט״ו - וירא א

Parshas Vayeira — 20 MarCheshvan

1. On the verse,^[1] "And they said to him, 'Where is Sarah your wife?'" Rashi quotes the words "And they said to him" and explains: "There are dots over the letters alef-yud-vav of the word eilav ('to him'). And it was taught:^[2] Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Wherever the plain writing exceeds the dotted letters, you expound the writing, etc.; and here the dotted letters exceed the writing, so you expound the dotted letters — that they also asked Sarah, 'Ayo — where is Avraham?' We learn^[3] that a person should ask at his lodging-place, a man about the wife and a woman^[4] about the husband." (Rashi then continues, "In Bava Metzia they say…," as will be cited below in section 2.)

This is not understood:

a) Rashi's explanation is seemingly only about the word eilav ("There are dots over alef-yud-vav of eilav") — why does he also quote the word "And they said"?

b) Rashi cites the name of the author of a statement only when this adds to the understanding of the matter. What additional understanding is gained here by saying that the rule ("Wherever the writing exceeds…") was stated by Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar?

c) The rule "Wherever…" itself requires explanation: why must the dots be multiplied until the dotted letters exceed the writing (for only then) "you expound the dotted letters"? Since "wherever the writing exceeds the dotted letters, you expound the writing," it would be enough to dot the minority — the letters that are not to be expounded — and the same majority of letters, left undotted, would then be expounded as writing.^[5]

In our case: to hint that the letters alef-yud-vav are to be expounded, one dot over the lamed would have sufficed, for then the letters alef-yud-vav would be expounded by virtue of the rule that "wherever the writing exceeds the dotted letters, you expound the writing." Why are three letters dotted?

d) Besides the difficulties in Rashi's comment here, there is also a contradiction from a later comment of Rashi. On "And he did not know when she lay down or when she arose,"^[6] Rashi says: "'When she arose' … is dotted, to say that when she arose he did know." We see from this that a dot comes to uproot the word^[7] — so how does this accord with what Rashi says here, that when the dotted letters exceed the writing, "you expound the dotted letters"?

2. Rashi then continues (in the same comment): "In Bava Metzia^[8] they say: The ministering angels knew where our mother Sarah was; rather, [they asked] to make known that she was modest, in order to endear her to her husband. Rabbi Yosi bar Chanina said: in order to send her the cup of blessing."

This is not understood:

a) "The angels knew … to endear her … to send her…" is an explanation not of "(the dots over) ayo" [— Avraham], but of "Where is Sarah your wife?" Rashi should therefore have written it as a separate comment, and not as a continuation of his explanation "There are dots over ayo."

The question is even stronger: what Rashi brings from Bava Metzia, "that she was modest," contradicts the beginning, "that they also asked Sarah…," which is seemingly the opposite of modesty. How, then, does Rashi bring both matters one after the other?

b) Why does Rashi note that "The angels knew…" is stated in Bava Metzia?

c) Why does Rashi mention the author of the statement "to send her…" — "Rabbi Yosi bar Chanina said"?^[9]

d) Why did the angels send Sarah from their cup of blessing — especially since this is seemingly contrary to modesty? Avraham could have given her from his own cup of blessing!^[10]

e) Rashi gives three reasons here for the angels' asking "Where is Sarah…": (a) "that a person should ask at his lodging-place, a man about the wife"; (b) "to make known that she was modest…"; (c) "to send her…." It is not understood: why are three reasons needed — is one reason not sufficient?

f) Moreover: Rashi already explained earlier^[11] that one of the purposes of their mission was "to bring the tidings to Sarah."^[12] It is then plainly understood that the question "Where is Sarah your wife?" was asked in order to tell her the tidings^[13] [as the verse immediately continues:^[14] "And he said … and behold, Sarah your wife will have a son; and Sarah was listening…"]. Why, then, does Rashi need to look for and give other reasons for their asking "Where is Sarah your wife?"

g) The three reasons that Rashi brings are three separate reasons that have no connection to one another. Why, then, does Rashi write them in one continuous passage^[15] (without adding an expression — "another explanation" or the like — that would separate them)?

The question is even stronger: in Tractate Bava Metzia^[8] it says (according to our version), "to endear her … Rabbi Yosi bar Chanina said: to send…," and the phrasing "Rabbi Yosi bar Chanina said" (the name of the author before the word "said") indicates^[16] that Rabbi Yosi bar Chanina disagrees with the reason "to endear her…." Yet Rashi changes it^[17] and writes "Said Rabbi Yosi bar Chanina…," and this phrasing ("said" before Rabbi Yosi bar Chanina) indicates^[16] that "to send…" comes as a continuation of "to endear her."

3. The explanation of all the above:

With his comment on "And they said to him," Rashi forestalls a difficulty. Since, plainly, the question "Where is Sarah your wife?" comes in connection with, and in order, "to bring the tidings to Sarah," as mentioned above, a difficulty arises: the mission of bringing the tidings to Sarah was assigned to only one angel [as Rashi specifies earlier: "one to bring the tidings to Sarah"; and therefore (as Rashi explains there) the verse further on says, "And he said, 'I will surely return … and behold, Sarah your wife will have a son'" — "And he said," in the singular]. Why, then, does it say here "And they said," in the plural, implying that all (three) angels asked "Where is Sarah?"

[This also answers why Rashi quotes the word "And they said" as well: Rashi comes here to explain why it says "And they said," in the plural.]

To this Rashi answers, "We learn that a person should ask at his lodging-place, a man about the wife": since all the angels asked "Where is Sarah your wife?", this was (not in order "to bring the tidings to Sarah," but) because one must ask at one's lodging-place, a man about the wife.

And since from "And they said" (in the plural) there is a compelling source for the teaching "that a person should ask at his lodging-place…" — which means, for the same reason, both "a man about the wife" and "a woman about the husband"^[18] — it is consequently understood "that they also asked Sarah, 'Where is Avraham?'" Why, then, is this not written in the verse? Rashi says that we must therefore conclude that here the dots (over ayo of eilav) belong to the plain meaning of the verse,^[19] even though in several places^[20] Rashi does not explain the dots, since, according to his approach, they are not a necessary part of understanding the plain meaning of the verse.^[21]

4. But it is still not understood: "that a person should ask at his lodging-place" is, plainly, a matter of asking after one's welfare,^[22] and to ask after Sarah's welfare it makes no difference where she is. Why, then, did the angels ask "Where is Sarah?"

Therefore Rashi continues: "In Bava Metzia they say … to endear her … to send…" — the angels phrased their inquiry after her welfare as "Where is Sarah" "to endear her…" and "to send…."^[23]

5. By bringing from Bava Metzia also "to make known that she was modest," Rashi answers a further question:

A word (or a letter) that has a dot over it shows that this word (or letter) is different from other words. In what does the difference consist? To say that the dot erases it entirely is not possible (according to the plain meaning^[24]), for if so, why is it written at all? One must say that the dot (only) weakens the dotted word^[25] — as Rashi says on "and he kissed him":^[26] "This dot is to say that he did not kiss him with all his heart"; and similarly according to the second interpretation, "he kissed him with all his heart," it was not the (ordinary) kind of kiss, for it is "a halachah" that "Esav hates Yaakov."

Or even more: the dot uproots the word (from its place, or at least from its connection, like "the stone was uprooted"^[27]) — as Rashi says on "And he did not know when she lay down or when she arose," that the dot over "when she arose" comes to say that "when she arose he did know." But, as will be explained, it does not erase it:

Following "And he did not know when she lay down or when she arose," the verse goes on to relate:^[28] "And it came to pass on the morrow … let us give him wine to drink tonight as well…." This is not understood: since "when she arose he did know," the plan of "let us give him wine to drink" could no longer help! The explanation is that "when she arose he did know" was said only with regard to Lot, but Lot's daughters thought that also when she arose he did not know, and therefore they said "let us give him wine to drink." The word "when she arose" is uprooted from "and he did not know" (regarding Lot), but it remains here with regard to (the continuation:) "the elder," "the younger."

6. From this it is understood in our case: since the letters alef-yud-vav (of eilav) are dotted, this shows that the question to Sarah, "Ayo — where is Avraham?" was not asked as forcefully as the question eilav — to Avraham.

[This also answers why the dots had to be on three letters of eilav — even though, had there been a dot only over the lamed, the letters alef-yud-vav would also have been expounded (for, as above, "wherever the writing exceeds the dotted letters, you expound the writing"). Because the dots are over the letters alef-yud-vav, we know that the question "Where is Avraham?" was not asked forcefully.^[29]]

In what does the weakness of the question "Where is Avraham?"^[30] consist? This is understood from what Rashi brings from Bava Metzia, "to make known that she was modest": since Sarah was modest, logic requires that the angels also asked her "Where is Avraham?" not in a manner of publicity and openness — it was asked in a manner of modesty.^[31]

Accordingly it is understood that what Rashi brings from Bava Metzia, "to make known that she was modest," not only does not contradict the explanation "that they also asked Sarah, 'Where is Avraham?'" — on the contrary: precisely through it, it is explained why the letters alef-yud-vav are dotted.

7. The reason why, in the explanation "The angels knew … to make known that she was modest," Rashi prefaces "In Bava Metzia they say," is that the beginning (the rule of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar) is also found in Bereishis Rabbah.^[32] Rashi therefore says that he brings the continuation specifically from Bava Metzia — where it comes as a continuation, and the two complement each other.

Rashi therefore emphasizes "(In Bava Metzia) they say": the matter stated in Bava Metzia ("to make known that she was modest") is said anonymously — "they say" — and it holds according to all opinions, also according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who says "that they also asked Sarah…";

and even according to Rabbi Yosi bar Chanina, who says "to send her…," for "to send her" also does not contradict "she was modest," as will be explained below in section 11.

8. But the explanation "to make known that she was modest…" is not sufficient, because Avraham surely knew that Sarah was modest,^[33] and they too, as angels, knew that Avraham knew this. It follows that the asking was only to arouse her endearment (which existed in any case) to her husband.^[34]

Therefore Rashi adds that the angels had yet another reason in this — "to send her the cup of blessing."

But this reason alone is also not sufficient, for since "they knew … where she was," they did not need to ask "Where is Sarah?" Therefore Rashi says that their lengthening their words and asking "Where is Sarah your wife?" was so that Avraham would have to answer them (and thereby draw attention to the fact), "Behold, in the tent"^[35] (which brings out with emphasis "that she was modest").

9. A further advantage of the reason "to send her…" over the reason "to make known that she was modest":

Regarding "she was modest," only the negative aspect matters — that she is not in an exposed place — and not the positive, precise point that she is "ba'ohel," "in the tent" (the beis vocalized with a kamatz — in the known tent). According to the reason "to send…," however, the exact place where she is matters, in order to know where "to send her."^[36]

10. The reason the angels had to send Sarah from their cup of blessing — even though, seemingly, Avraham could have given her from his own cup of blessing — is understood simply:^[37]

Being perfect in hospitality, Avraham was entirely occupied with serving the angels — "and he stood over them, and they (only the angels) ate"^[38] — he did not eat;^[39] so he did not have a cup of blessing either.

This also explains why their sending Sarah from their cup of blessing was not contrary to modesty: there was no other way for her to have a cup of blessing than by sending it to her from their cup of blessing;^[40] and especially since they did not give it to Sarah themselves, but sent it to her ("to send").

11. The five-year-old beginning Chumash (if he is a sharp student) can, however, say that Sarah's taking from their cup of blessing is still not complete modesty. Therefore Rashi says, "Rabbi Yosi bar Chanina said…":

Rabbi Yosi bar Chanina says in Tractate Berachos^[41] "that a woman recognizes guests better than a man." Accordingly it is understood that Sarah recognized that the guests were not ordinary people^[42] — and to take a cup of blessing from such people (who are at least similar to angels) is not contrary to modesty.

12. After all the above, an explanation is still lacking. Although the three reasons indeed do not contradict one another (and one can therefore say that in saying "Where is Sarah" the angels intended all three reasons), they are nevertheless three separate reasons. Why, then, does Rashi write them in one continuous passage^[43] [and not as everywhere else that Rashi brings several explanations — even when the explanations do not contradict one another (and each explanation answers the difficulty that exists in the other explanation) — where he says "another explanation" or the like]?

The explanation is: Rashi gives three reasons (in one continuous passage) because three angels asked this — each for a separate reason (similar to Rashi's comment at the beginning of the parsha, "for one angel does not perform two missions"), and each reason pertains to only one angel:^[44] to send the cup of blessing, one angel suffices (as is seen with every cup of blessing); also for "asking at the lodging-place" it suffices that one angel ask in the name of all; and similarly "to endear her to her husband."

13. The explanation of why Rashi says that the rule "Wherever the writing exceeds the dotted letters…" was stated by Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar:

The rule that when the dotted letters exceed the writing "you expound the dotted letters" means [not to negate the plain meaning — especially according to Rashi's approach in his commentary on the Torah, which is built on the plain meaning of Scripture — but] that in addition to the plain meaning, in which the dotted letters are part of the whole word, the dots on them show that they are also (as it were) a word in their own right.

That is to say, in the dotted letters — in our case, the letters alef-yud-vav — there are two aspects: a) They are part of the word eilav; and from this aspect the letters alef-yud-vav are dotted — merely secondary, since the essential part of the word eilav ["to" Avraham] is the lamed.^[45] b) A word (a matter) in its own right — ayo.

The five-year-old beginning Chumash (if he is an expert student) asks: how can it be that the dotted letters (alef-yud-vav), which exceed the writing — and which are (also) a matter in their own right — should be secondary to one letter, the lamed?

Rashi forestalls this question by saying that the rule (that when the dotted letters exceed the writing, you expound the dotted letters) was stated by Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar:

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in Tractate Beitzah:^[46] "A woman may fill the entire oven with bread, because bread bakes well when the oven is full." That is, although for Yom Tov she needs only one loaf, she may bake an entire oven full of bread, in order (to reduce the empty space of the oven, so) that the loaf she needs for Yom Tov should be well baked.

We see, then, that according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar many loaves become secondary to one loaf — and similarly in our case: three letters, alef-yud-vav, are secondary to the lamed.

14. From the "wine of Torah" in Rashi's commentary:

When a Jew considers that the time he spends on Torah and mitzvos is, at least in quantity, a small amount of time, while most of his time goes to eating, drinking and sleeping, earning his livelihood, etc. — permissible matters — he may become cold and despondent at heart, thinking that he has such a great "empty space," a "vacant place" devoid of Torah and mitzvos.

To this comes the instruction: if the permissible matters are "for the sake of Heaven," they cease to be [mere] permissible matters and become (secondary to) Torah and mitzvos — in the manner of "A woman may fill the entire oven with bread…." Although on Yom Tov one may do only the labors needed for Yom Tov, since the whole oven of bread comes so that the bread needed for Yom Tov be well baked, it becomes Yom Tov bread, and the empty space (of the oven) is filled not with weekday matters but with matters of Yom Tov.

When a Jew does his permissible matters for the sake of Torah and mitzvos in general, and especially so that his "bread" of Torah be well baked — as explained in Likkutei Torah^[47] on the verse^[48] "And ten women shall bake your bread in one oven," that the bread of Torah should be "baked" in the "warmth (oven) of the love that comes from contemplating [G‑d's] Oneness" — he then becomes, in the words of the Rambam,^[49] "one who serves G‑d constantly, even while he conducts business … and even while he sleeps … his sleep is service of the Omnipresent, blessed be He" — one who serves G‑d "in all your deeds" and "in all your ways," also with their lowest aspects,

which is indeed the purpose of the creation of the worlds — to make for Him, may He be blessed, a dwelling place specifically in the lower realms, as explained at length in the hemshech of 5666 by the Rebbe [Rashab], whose birthday is this Shabbos^[50] —

and this also becomes a close preparation for the time when we will not need to come to baking, for "the Land of Israel is destined to bring forth loaves and fine woolen garments,"^[51] with the coming of our righteous Moshiach, speedily, truly soon.

(From a talk of Shabbos Parshas Vayeira, 5736)

Key Lesson

Most of a person's day goes to eating, sleeping and earning a living, and this can make him feel that his life is largely an "empty space" without Torah and mitzvos. But when these permissible activities are done for the sake of Heaven — so that his Torah and mitzvos will come out "well baked" — they become secondary to, and part of, his service of G‑d, just as a whole oven of loaves becomes Yom Tov bread for the sake of the one loaf needed for Yom Tov. In this way a Jew serves G‑d "in all your ways," makes a dwelling place for G‑d in the lowest realms, and prepares for the coming of Moshiach.